Europe’s Problem Is Not Complicated

Laurenz Gehrke
Jul 21, 2017 · 7 min read

It appears as though the continent is in an extremely complicated situation — because all debates about the future lack honesty

Dishonest debates about who is to blame for what and what can be done to rectify the situation are behind a grave misunderstanding that has taken hold of virtually all Europeans. The absurd reality is that the so called Eurosceptics are angry — and rightly so — because of unfortunate conditions that are rooted in the timid nature of the European Union rather than a presumptuous and illegitimate infringement of national sovereignty.

The European Project’s big brother, globalisation itself, has equally come under attack over its undeniably bad side effects. However, those effects are not so much necessary consequences of globalisation as they are the poisonous outcome of economic integration combined with insufficient political coordination. To overcome that regretful state, then, there are only two possible strategies. One would be Stephen Bannon’s economic nationalism (not the preferable one as will be outlined further down). The other one is for political cooperation to catch up with economic integration.

Queen Elizabeth II wearing europhile clothes

The British Case

Over a year ago, the British people voted to leave the European Union. A few months later, Prime Minister Theresa May defended that decision by denouncing those who consider themselves to be citizens of the world as citizens of nowhere. Her statement did not only sound surprisingly wicked, it was also simply wrong. Whether or not we consider ourselves citizens of the world, we definitely are just that. There is no politics behind that fact; it’s mainly technology and economics.

Ridiculing her own statement, several months later May spoke again, outlining her plan to make Britain “truly global” by escaping from the European Union. Thus she betrayed her world view: while everyone was to remain a citizen of Inverness or Dover, the United Kingdom as a whole was to pursue a global agenda. It sounded a bit as though she wanted to revive the glorious days of the British Empire: extreme economic globalisation without political coordination.

That, of course, is something the UK has suffered under not because of but despite its EU membership for decades already: iron-fisted global markets without sufficient political protection for what are by default (yes, Theresa!) global citizens. Paradoxically, and evidently unbeknownst to themselves, Brexiteers have developed their fierce desire to leave the European Union not because Brussels was depriving them of their British citizenship but because it didn’t offer them true European citizenship. It should be mentioned in this context that Britain must take most of the blame for the EU’s powerlessness, as the country was traditionally the most eager opponent of a stronger Union.

At first it may sound odd that those who were cheering and waving the Union Jack after the referendum should subconsciously wish to be citizens of the European Union. But cultural identity and citizenship do not necessarily have to go hand in hand. Ardent Brexiteers certainly want to retain their sense of Britishness — thankfully so, actually — but they also want a kind of social protection their national government is unable to grant them in the 21st century without losing its competitiveness on global markets. Thus, that kind of protection requires political coordination on a supranational level.

The financial consequences of Brexit have been (and will be) discussed at great length elsewhere. Nobody knows for sure whether it will be disastrous or perfectly fine or something in between. What will be more interesting to observe, however, is how Brexiteers cope with the revelation that their problems were caused by a lack of EU intervention rather than by obnoxious Brussels technocrats who thought they knew everything better.

A rally in Munich

The French Case

It would be unfair to single out the United Kingdom, though. The euphoria surrounding Emmanuel Macron’s first weeks in office, for instance, makes it easy to forget that many French citizens remain highly eurosceptic. There, too, it is a story of economic and social problems that are not caused by too much Europe, but by too little.

Many French citizens have suffered because while Europe is an economic union — a trade bloc — it is not a political union. The rigorous dynamics of open markets and the painful adjustment processes faced by workers whose skills have become less valuable over the years could only be cushioned by precisely the kind of labour market policy France is constantly told to be the cause of its high unemployment figures.

But what is the alternative? Most articles on the matter suggest German-style labour market reforms. But if, as a result, the French labour market becomes more dynamic, there are fewer jobseekers, and domestic production can become more efficient, isn’t Germany necessarily going to take a hit? After all, some already put it bluntly and say Germany is exporting unemployment.

So what the understandably angry French citizens should be rallying against is not the EU itself but its blatant inability to serve as a supranational entity that can mitigate such a situation by forcing member states (Germany in this case) to behave in a way that benefits the welfare of the entire Union. If Marine Le Pen took her voters’ concerns seriously, she would be honest and wail the lack of true European intervention rather than proposing to leave the EU without revealing exactly what it is she has in mind as an alternative.

As for Germany, it would benefit from the existence of a powerful decision-maker that is not constrained by national interests because otherwise the country is bound to go on as if nothing was wrong until it is too late to prevent a disastrous outcome. Economists should argue, for instance, that German complacency is inappropriate because its artificial competitiveness runs the risk of stifling management improvement and innovation.

A rally in Berlin

The Italian Case

Meanwhile in Italy, support for the European Union suffers because the country is being challenged by the overwhelming refugee crisis in the Mediterranean. Perfectly understandable calls for help remain unanswered because Brussels is not powerful enough to coordinate help on the European level.

Again, the weakness of the EU is used as an argument in favour of leaving it rather than as reason to be outraged at its still half-baked nature. In fact, the refugee crisis may be the best example on which to show the need for more rather than less EU intervention because it is as big and as exogenous as climate change, the most obvious issue to make supranational coordination look inevitable.

Both the refugee crisis and the consequences of our changing climate pose a big challenge to societies across the globe. Given that the reasons behind both developments are complex and at least partly rooted in our own behaviour and that of our ancestors, there can be no solution to the problems that doesn’t involve every citizen of every nation. The effort that is going to have to be made sooner or later must therefore be coordinated on the supranational level. It is worth noting in this context, that Nicaragua never signed the Paris Climate Accord because it doesn’t go far enough. Evidently, there is a lot of work to be done.

It is technically impossible for Italy to bear the burden of the refugee crisis it currently bears only due to its geographic location. And it is morally depraved of the rest of Europe to not properly assist the country, when Italy is no more to blame for the situation than the rest of the rich world. Just like cutting carbon emissions, the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean is a matter that must be tackled by Europe rather than single countries, because a lack of coordination and solidarity has the potential to cause chaos on a scale not seen since the Second World War.

Going It Alone

That takes us back to Theresa May’s deluded reflections on global citizenship. Globalisation is not a matter of perspective; it is our reality. And while it provides unprecedented opportunities, it also comes with problems that cannot be faced by individual countries. Any attempt to do that must end in disaster as is very well demonstrated by the turmoil of the 1930s. Stephen Bannon’s economic nationalism is therefore not only rooted in a misunderstanding of economics, it is also bound to make everyone (including Americans) poorer, to let the environment decay, and to leave the refugee crisis unanswered until it grows into an issue of unanswerable proportions.

Crucially, however, it is indeed the only consistent policy proposal that allows for the avoidance of supranational coordination. There can be only that or more political globalisation. It is the lack of honesty in our debates mentioned above, that accounts for our inability to see that. Most politicians still sound as though there could be a combination of both ways. They are wrong. The way forward is to increase cooperation, and there is no time to lose.

As summer slows everything down in Europe, efforts should be made to emphasize the urgency of the problem. The key to Europe’s recovery is not a foul compromise, nor a timid step towards more integration, and certainly not a continuation of “muddling through” which has been so insufferable and damaging for an entire decade now. The solution is a decisive step towards true European citizenship, thoroughly communicated to those who have suffered most under the half-baked approach of the past: the underprivileged and unemployed, trapped in an outdated system that doesn’t live up to the reality of the 21st century.

)
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade